Dropdown Menu

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

Good Information

Blog Stats

The justification for law-abiding citizens to keep & bear arms is as foundational as the right to life, liberty, free speech, religious expression, etc. As many intelligent people have said time and time again, without the 2nd Amendment, there is no 1st Amendment.

From Adam and Eve, to you and I, anybody who wishes to arm themselves, so long as they do not use those arms to oppress others, and deny them their Constitutional rights, here in America, may, and that right is protected by the immortal words of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was, of course, included in the Bill of Rights that James Madison and others insisted on, before the Constitution was ratified.

Here’s the text of the Second Amendment, which is so critical to the securing of our liberty:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And the Militia, in those days, just as it is (whether some admit it or not) today, consisted of every able-bodied man and older boys, who were capable of fighting.

Not only is it our Constitutional right to keep & bear arms, but it is a NATURAL LAW right, with which we are Endowed by our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence so eloquently reminds us:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

One cannot reasonably ignore that foundational text of one of our most important founding documents; it we have the UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE, we have the right to self-defense, and we cannot really enjoy liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, in this life, if our life is cut short by a violent criminal (or tyrannical government), now, can we?

The the laws of nature and of Nature’s God grant mankind the right to self-defense. The principle of self-defense is such a fundamental one, that even the most peaceful major world religions, Judaism and Christianity, allow for the shedding of blood in self-defense. Denying Americans the fundamental right to keep and bear arms isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s immoral; if you deny somebody that right, then their blood is partially on the hands of those who instituted, and supported such regulations.

Here’s one of my favorite video clips, which includes five words that express how all Americans SHOULD feel about their 2nd Amendment rights:

Every genocidal dictator in world history of which we’re aware had a policy of disarming the general population of the target nation. From Mao to Stalin to Hitler, all Marxist dictators wish to be able to slaughter innocents who disagree with them, without having to deal with a resistance that can shoot back. The Principles of Freedom enshrined in the Constitution are as necessary for a fullness of human happiness and prosperity as oxygen for us to breathe is necessary for our continued survival.

The Militia of a nation are its able-bodied men. The right to keep & bear arms is a sacred right; it guarantees the security of a free state, from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

Any who wish to infringe upon this right must be viewed with extreme suspicion, if a people wishes to remain free. America has, for far too long, tolerated politicians’ demonizing of those who freely exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

It isn’t just time for that to stop, it’s time to actively work our tails off to ‘reset the system,’ and get legislation passed which recognizes the constitutionality of keeping and bearing arms, and which eliminates ALL REGULATIONS except keeping the dangerous mentally-ill and violent felons from lawfully exercising this right.

Andaccess to ammunition, ammo clips, reloading supplies and equipment, gunsmithing, and other attendant devices, supplies, technologies, and materials, must be likewise protected. Americans have the right to purchase arms and attendant supplies at market cost, uninflated by artificial, bureaucratic means.

Rhetorical question: What have YOU done to prepare yourself and your family, so that you need not fear? Do you have sufficient food, water, fuel, clothing, boots/shoes, medical supplies, essential drugs, guns, ammunition, etc. stockpiled against the time of need?

If you haven’t get purchased your first pistol, revolver, home defense/combat shotgun, bolt action, lever action, or semiautomatic rifle, or battle rifle/machine gun, why not? What about stockpiling food, water, medical supplies, essential drugs, guns/ammunition, fuel, clothing & shoes (especially for growing kids), and other essentials? When will you begin to prepare? If you spend money on tobacco and/or alcohol, on Cable TV, on gambling, on eating out at restaurants, or any of the comforts of our modern society that aren’t essential to your survival, but not firearms, ammunition, food, fuel, water, medical supplies, essential drugs, etc., when are you going to wake up, and prepare for what’s coming?

Hopefully this week.

But enough of my words. I have a more comprehensive 2nd Amendment discussion thread on the way, but I thought that since we had that network downtime today and last night, I ought to get something useful and informative out before I finish my longer commentary and coverage of the growing threat to our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And while the purpose of this discussion thread is to let David Barton impart some of his impressive library of knowledge to us, via Glenn Beck’s TheBlazeTV, let’s first enjoy the NRA’s new ad exposing the incredible hypocrisy of the Barack Hussein Obama Regime and American Marxists:

As stronger sentiment concerning gun control mounts on the American streets, Glenn Beck invited renown historian and Wallbuilders founder David Barton on his Tuesday evening program to provide viewers with a comprehensive overview of the Second Amendment as a foundation for liberty and freedom.

Beck was compelled to provide this in-depth look after 19 potential executive actions were identified to move the Obama administration forward with new gun control measures. Those measures include but are not limited to: requiring mental health screenings of both the buyer and seller; banning military-style “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines; issuing a statute prohibiting gun trafficking; and an “end” to the “hobbling of federal agencies.”

“This is not about preventing mass-murders it is about eliminating your right to bear arms,” Beck slammed. “This administration will never waste a good emergency.”

“Americans need to know where the Second Amendment even comes from…The history of our ‘why and how,’ and how it has shaped our foundation of freedom.”

A glance back in time

Barton, who has an extensive knowledge-base in American history, said that the Second Amendment is truly about a “certain set of principles.” He added that people should not separate the Second Amendment from other amendments, particularly the first five, as they are all aligned and part of one larger concept of protection of one’s self, religion and property. In other words ”unalienable rights.”

The Founding Fathers, according to Barton, believed that God gave these rights to mankind and that no government could take them away.

“That is why our government is different,” he explained, “other world governments trampled peoples rights… the idea was to prevent the government from ever trampling our rights.” He added that unlike any country in Europe, Americans insisted the government could not touch what God had given them.

The Founders also used the philosophy term “laws of nature and nature is God,” which Barton informed is contained in Blackstone’s commentary on the law. The idea is that certain things come to one from nature, such as the deep-seated biological mechanism of self-defense. The historian also noted that James Wilson, a signer of both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence noted that the law of nature is to defend oneself, and that — through the castle doctrine — a private citizen failing to defend his home or family — even with deadly force — would be considered negligence.

As the interview continued, Barton went on to explain how different the times were at America’s founding, and that citizens could even penalized for not carrying a gun. The topic then veered to the lawless days of the Wild West, its religious revival and the role of Texas Rangers in enforcing the law.

In addition, Barton addressed the founding of the NRA. While some like to demonize pro-Second Amendment group and even call it prejudiced, it turns out the powerful group was in fact started by two Union generals in 1871 as a means to driving out the Ku Klux Klan and ensuring that blacks, who although then-free were not allowed means with which to defend themselves — could in fact legally own a gun.

Barton also noted that even after the Whiskey and Shays rebellions, and even the assassinations of Lincoln Garfield and McKinley, calls for gun bans never came into play. In fact, the times even bolstered the Second Amendment.

It was not until the aftermath of Malcolm X, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King’s assassination that then President Lyndon B. Johnson sought stricter gun control. Ironically, said Barton, President Reagan — although having survived an assassination attempt himself — was very much an adherent to the Second Amendment and opposed then assistant and White House Press Secretary Jim Brady’s bill.

Psychology professor Warren Throckmorton, a scholar who has challenged some of Barton’s facts in the past, took note of Barton’s assertion, however, revealing that Reagan actually favored the Brady bill. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Reagan wrote:

This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.

Reagan, while a proponent of the Second Amendment, had a more moderate view on gun control, revealing that people’s views on the issue, irrespective of political leaning, is as multi-layered as the types of legislations that have been brought to bear concerning the matter. For deeper insight into the Gipper’s views on gun control, please visit TheBlaze’s in-depth article here.

When asked how American citizens should react if government were to seek to claim their arms, Barton said that there is a host of lawyers working bro-bono to step in and help protect citizens’ gun rights.

——–

Make sure to share this discussion thread with everybody in your email lists of tea partiers and/or 9.12’ers, in addition to your peers who you believe will make good recruits to our movement!

Let me expose you to a discussion we had on my social site about this topic. People can write articles and then ask questions that we respond to. One of those articles was titled: Will the Obama Nightmare put an end to The American Dream?

Some of the answers to the question above are as follows:

-Not if I have anything to do with it!
42% Chose this answer.

-No!
21% Chose this answer.

-Over my dead body!
21% Chose this answer.

-Yes!
16% Chose this answer.

-Only if I get free stuff!
0% Chose this answer.

Commenter 1 said: America was designed to defend against obama 200 years ago – all we have to do is cling to the truths that are already there.

Commenter 2 said: It is imperitive that we do something to disrupt his plans!

Commenter 3 said: Osama Bin laden, even so , saying the next attack will come from within, and with what is happening to our rights, right now, makes his agenda seem more predictable. it is so funny how we conservatives, can see this but these liberals, are still so blinded.

Commenter 4 said: If that is what I have to do then so be it!!! I have been in combat before, and I am not afraid to go through it again. I was in the Army from 2002-2008, did three tours to Iraq, invasion ’02-’03, Sadr City ’05-’06, and Arab Jabour ’07-’08.

Commenter 5, Judy (me) responded back by saying: Good for you. We do appreciate your service, I hope it doesn’t come to needing you though.

Commenter 4 responded back: I appreciate whatever support is given to us troops. Thank you. I hope not too. However, I am concerned with the fact that the DoD has recently classified those of us who have served, and believe in Christ as “Homegrown Terrorist”.

Judy: What? Homegrown Terrorists? Why?

Commenter 4 responded back with: If you check it out on the internet, the DoD started looking at us OIF/OEF Veterans who are strong in our faith as possibly going to extremes against the current admin.

So I did check it out on the Internet and was shocked. It’s true! Can you believe that this administration really does see our return servicemen and women as a possible “homegrown terrorist” threat because they are Christian and are thus, right-wing fanatics? There is nothing about being Christian that makes a person a right-wing fanatic and a threat to this nation.

What is ridiculous is thinking these brave people, those who offered their lives for this country, are being categorized with those who bombed the Trade Center on 9/11 and McVey (who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City)?

This is why I decided to do a report and tell you what our government thinks of those who served, those who are Conservatives, and those who belong to the TEA Party.

WorldNetDaily.com did an exclusive report on April 12, 2009 about this subject: A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” dated April 7, states that “threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.” <<MORE>>

This is the Google Link where I found the information I report to you today: Google Search Link

Homeland Security Classifies Returning US Veterans as Potential .Apr 14, 2009 … The suguestion that our own returning veterans be classified and potential…. Now I am a terrorist?!? I don’t have exact statistics on hand but I would …. TRUE THAT BROTHER! 82nd Airborne SAPPER OEF 02′ OIF 03-04′ …americaswatchtower.com/…/homeland-security-classifies-returning-us-veterans-as-potential-terrorist-threat/

This is what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about our military men and women who are overseas fighting on our behalf:

the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

That is unforgivable. To suggest that some of our troops will come home and form or join terrorist groups is beyond reprehensible. And why suddenly is the Department of Homeland Security suddenly using the “T” word again when talking about our troops when they refuse to call the actual terrorists what they are?

The report continues:

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/domestic-terror-threat/ In April, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by Secretary Janet Napolitano, sent out a secret 10 page report to law- enforcement agencies nation wide warning about a potential homegrown terrorist threat from rightwing extremists. The report and other statements by the DHS describe these groups as “anti-government, hate-oriented, paranoid, dangerous, and violent”.

The DHS has placed these extremists on the same threat level as the 9/11 terrorists. They espouse radical policies on gun control, abortion, illegal aliens, and nationalizing the economy. The movements can be broadly divided into two categories, those primarily based on a particular religious doctrine, and those mainly anti-federal government, rejecting central authority in favor of state or local authority.

These dangerous individuals number in the millions. There is nothing secretive about their meeting places. They usually gather on weekends and sometimes Wednesday evenings in buildings they call “churches” or “synagogues” and they call themselves “Christians” or “Jews”. Some assemblages are small, while others are called “mega-churches”. Many are American military veterans who belong to militias, and we all remember Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Secretary Napolitano is right to have DHS monitor these groups. Now doesn’t that make you feel safer?

How do you feel now about our wonderful administration? This was so shocking to me that I hardly believed it.

Since when is it anti-American to be Christian or Jew or because we espouse such radical views on gun control, abortion, illegal aliens, and nationalizing the economy? Yes, there are millions of us who feel this way. And yes, the Founding Fathers felt this way also; thus, the Constitution.

When is it anti-American to be against abortion that takes the life of the unborn? Somebody needs to give them a voice and protect their rights to live! The choice a woman has over her body ends the minute she allows herself to become pregnant (and considering special situations)!

It is at that point that there are bodies of two people to consider, not only hers. Worshiping the god of lust and pleasure does not allow women to discard the product of that lifestyle. It is like times in the Bible where people were sacrificed to the gods in order to have their approval and protection.

When is it anti-American in wanting to defend our nation against anyone, even our President, from taking down our country? It is anti-American to ignore the threats against this nation and do nothing.

I am NOT suggesting that people need to rebel against our current administration unless the President or any of his administration tries to usurp control; the Constitution has made provisions for such a situation should it happen.

It would NOT be anti-American to fight a government that tries to usurp power and control of this nation, as established by the Constitution. In fact, doing so is very much American. For example, read the except below from the Declaration of Independence.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Please use the link Declaration of Independenceand read the Declaration yourself. Then please use the link at the end and sign the petition to recommit to the Declaration of Independence for 2010. You never know, we may again be required to establish a new Constitution under the ConCon, which is also a report I’m working on, and perhaps suffer a new revolution. Time will tell for sure.

As always, I welcome anything you have to say. If you want to tell me I’m full of BS, that will be fine as well.